Monsanto agent urges large assessment cut for Luling plant; assessor, council say evidence falls short

An agent for Monsanto Company asked the St. Charles Parish Council, sitting as the board of review on Oct. 6, to lower the taxed value of Monsanto’s Luling chemical plant by citing ‘‘economic obsolescence’’ tied to overseas competition and litigation. Assessor Troxler told the council the evidence provided so far does not meet the burden needed to justify the reduction.

The appeal, filed as part of the board of review hearing, centered on the plant’s production of glyphosate and the effect of lower market prices and ongoing litigation. Richard Griffin, who identified himself as the agent for Monsanto and gave a Round Rock, Texas, address, told the council that market forces and legal exposure had reduced the site’s economic prospects. "The prices for that have fallen almost 50% while our costs to produce have increased by 26%," Griffin said. He also said litigation has been widespread: "There’s been 93 thousand cases against Monsanto and Bayer ... 67,000 cases are still pending."

The council heard that Monsanto engaged KPMG to prepare an appraisal but that KPMG ‘‘relied on a market approach’’ because it could not isolate plant-specific cash flows. Griffin said Bayer (Monsanto’s corporate parent) was considering stopping U.S. glyphosate production and that the company had already altered retail Roundup formulations.

Assessor Troxler, responding to the presentation, said his office had examined the materials and followed Louisiana Tax Commission guidance, notably Chapter 25 of the Louisiana Tax Commission rules and regulations. Troxler told the council the assessor’s office and the taxpayer differ by roughly $405 million on the plant valuation and that, under state guidelines, the taxpayer bears the burden of producing "sufficient evidence" to support economic obsolescence. "I am required on the Louisiana Constitution to consider all three approaches to value," Troxler said, adding that the information provided to the assessor did not isolate facility-level cash flows or certified financials that would allow him to justify a $400 million reduction.

Council members pressed both sides. Councilwoman O'Daniels asked Troxler to describe the legal burden for reversing the assessor’s value; Troxler said a taxing authority would need defensible, auditable evidence to justify a reversal. Councilman Fisher asked whether Monsanto planned additional appraisal work; Griffin said KPMG had completed an appraisal for the year but that some financial details were withheld from public disclosure for confidentiality reasons and that Bayer planned further expert work to share with the assessor.

Other council members pointed to past concessions the parish has granted to the company — including accelerated depreciation on certain vessels and a prior large obsolescence allowance for a demolished facility — and said those precedents show the assessor’s office has previously recognized obsolescence when supported by evidence. But members also said they could not verify how Monsanto arrived at the lower valuation without more detailed financial data.

The board moved on after the hearing and later voted to accept and certify the assessor’s 2025 assessment roll as submitted to the Louisiana Tax Commission; the vote to accept and certify the assessment roll passed unanimously.

The record of the hearing shows the dispute will likely continue through formal appeal channels: Troxler noted that the 2024 case remains on appeal to the Louisiana Tax Commission, and both the taxpayer and the assessor said they will continue to exchange valuation materials. The council did not make a separate judgment replacing the assessor’s value; it certified the assessor’s submission to the Louisiana Tax Commission.

The council’s action preserves the assessor’s current valuation for the parish’s 2025 assessment cycle while leaving the taxpayer options to pursue further review at the tax commission or through additional submissions to the assessor.